PEOPLE vs GOZO [53 SCRA 476] (G.R. No. L-36409) Oct. 26, 1973Principle 197 3Principle of Sovereignty as Auto-LimitationFacts: Loreta Gozo seeks to set aside a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zambales,convicting her of a violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, requiring a permit from themunicipal mayor for the construction or erection of a building, building, as well as any modification,alteration, modification,alteration, repair or demolition thereof. She questions its validity, or at the very least, itsapplicability to her, by invoking due process citing the case of People v. Fajardo . She contendthat her house was constructed within the naval base leased to the American armed forceslocated inside the United States Naval Reservation within the territorial t erritorial jurisdiction of OlongapoCity and therefore shall be exempted from the Municipal Ordinance No. 14. Issue: WON the property of the Appellant shall be exmpeted from the application of the MunicipalOrdinance. Ruling: Yes. The appellant’s contention that because her property was located within the naval baseleased to the American armed forces located inside the United States Naval Reservation, shemust be entitled of the exemption from f rom complying with the ordanance was given no merit.Though the property yielded within the Naval base of US, it is a clear doctrine that thePhilippines still possesses the sovereignty over that area – given the record that it is still a partof its territory. Thus, it can still enforce its administrative jurisdiction by virtue of its governmentinstrumetalities which the people sojourning to that territory must always adhere andrespect.Citing the case of Reagan vs CIR it states that, “By “By the Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction incertain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency.The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of thePhilippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein.Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but notexclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictionalrights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of. The first proposition is implied from the fact of Philippine sovereignty over the bases; the second from the express provisions of the the treaty."Thus, the Philippine jurisdictional right might be diminished but will never disappear. Thismanifests the principle of Sovereignty as auto-limitation , which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction." A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence."WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of November 11, 1969 is affirmed insofar as it found theaccused, Loreta Gozo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Municipal Ordinance No.14, series of 1964 and sentencing her to pay a fine of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment incase of insolvency, and modified insofar in sofar as she is required to demolish the house that is thesubject matter of the case, she being given a period of thirty days from the finality of thisdecision within which to obtain the required permit. Only upon her failure to do so will thatportion of the appealed decision requiringdemolition be enforced. Costs against the accused.
